JOSEPH KUNJU Vs. THOMCOS BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE legal representatives of the plaintiff are the appellants. THE plaintiff died during the pendency of the suit and his legal representatives were impleaded. THE suit from which this appeal arises was instituted by the plaintiff for recovery of a plot of land with two buildings (items 2 & 3) thereon with arrears of rent and damages. THE plot and buildings were outstanding on a lease under Ext. M dated 28 2 1947 with the respondent, a company incorporated under the Companies Act. On 411948 the two buildings caught fire as a result of which one of them was completely destroyed and the roofing of the other was entirely damaged.

(2.) THE main contention of the defendant was that the destruction of item No. 3 and damage to item No. 2 buildings were the result of act of God and therefore it was not liable for any amount as damages. THE respondent had insured the buildings valuing them at Rs. 5,000/ -. THE court below passed a decree for recovery of arrears of rent and for the amount which the respondent got from the Insurance Company i. e. Rs. 3, 207-9-6. THE plaintiff had claimed damages to the tune of Rs. 8,770/

(3.) I do not find the argument persuasive. Under S. 108 (m)the liability of the lessee to return the property in the condition in which it was at the time of the lease is not an unconditional liability. If the premises or the buildings are destroyed by fire on account of sheer accident or act of god a lessee is not responsible to compensate loss in damages. It is only when destruction or damage was the result of negligence of the lessee that he is bound to answer in damages. Therefore as the covenant in Ext. M, does not take in the liability for loss caused by fire and as the statutory obligation of the lessee does not rope in this liability, I do not think that the defendant can be made liable unless it is proved that the lessee was negligent and that negligence led to the loss by fire.